LAWS(GJH)-2005-4-23

PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS LTD Vs. MOHMED SAYED

Decided On April 13, 2005
PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS LTD Appellant
V/S
MOHMED SAYED Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) .Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) Appellant-M/s.Pepsico India Holding Ltd., being aggrieved by the order dated 18.12.98 passed in Special Civil Application No.10818 of 1998 by the learned Single Judge, whereunder the order dated 23.11.1998 passed by the authority under the Payment of Wages Act has been confirmed, is before this Court under Clause-15 of the Letters Patent. It would be necessary to note that present is the second round of litigation at the instance of the present appellant. The facts necessary for disposal of the present appeal are that the respondent made an application before the authority constituted under the Payment of Wages Act (referred to as "authority" for the sake of brevity) for certain reliefs against the present appellant. The appellant raised certain issues including that there was no relation of employer and employee and in view of the salary of more than Rs.1600/- being paid to the respondent, the authority would have no jurisdiction in the matter. On an earlier occasion, the contentions were negatived, therefore, the appellant came to this Court in Special Civil Application No. 3930 of 1997, the application was finally disposed of on 10.7.97. The question raised before the Court was that the authority would have no jurisdiction to hear and decide the matter and therefore, the application before the authority was not maintainable. The question of jurisdiction of the authority was also raised, to which, this Court observed that the petitioner (the appellant) will be at liberty to raise the objection as a preliminary objection before the learned Payment of Wages Authority and the authority will decide the same in accordance with law, though it will be for the learned authority to take its own decision as to whether the objections should be decided as a preliminary objection or along with other issues in the matter.

(3.) After the orders were passed by this Court, application exh. 22 was again placed before the authority.